About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
that it's a hard job every day of the week. >> defense secretary chuck hagel and joint chiefs of staff's general martin dempsey testified before the senate armed services committee on the defense department 2014 budget request. the pentagon budget request includes almost $527 billion in discretionary spending nearly 1% decrease from 2013. this is three hours and 45 minutes. >> good morning everybody. chuck hagel, general martin dempsey the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, accompanied by the department's comptroller undersecretary bob hailed for her hearing on department of defense fiscal year 2014 budget request and the posture of the u.s. armed forces we welcome secretary hagel on his first appearance as secretary of defense before this committee. we thank all of our witnesses for their service to our nation and to the soldiers sailors airmen and marines at home and in harm's way. we could never say that enough. your testimony today is a key component of the committees review of the fy2014 budget request for the department of defense. this year's request includes $526.6 billion
additional missile defense systems were needed to be deployed for the protection of the united states, whether domestically or abroad, would the russian government be consulted or informed before that decision was made? >> well, first, i can't answer for the president. that would be a decision for the president to make. i suspect have to reinvolve around treaty obligations, and we have before with other issues might be. >> in mah, the government requested meetings to take ac regularly to discuss the european missile shield. any talks to take play, and if there are plans for such talks, do they include any nato allies as part of the discussions? >> again, senator, i don't know about those talks that would be in purview of the secretary of state in the white house. i have not been consulted on any talks or possibility of what you're talking about. >> okay. you're not certain of whether there have been talks, but to your knowledge, there have not? n't know of any conversations of what you suggested on talks. >> i see time expired, thank you very much, and thank you, mr. chairman. >> than
in this race and our thoughts are with all of them today. the department of defense is prepared to respond quickly to any response for additional support from domestic law enforcement agencies. i will continue to consult closely with d.o.d. senior leaders on how we can best support the government's response and investigation. and chairman dempsey may have additional comments regarding this event as well. mr. chairman, i will now turn to my opening statement for this hearing. this year's 2014 budget request for the department of defense is -- as congressman lowey noted, a budget that was put together over many months. an enterprise as large as the department of defense, $600 billion is not collaborated with or on or numbers or budgets instructed in a manner of two or three months. and as we proceed in this hearing this morning, mr. chairman, we will get into some of the specifics of the budget and why some of the decisions were made on the basis of what the numbers will reveal and our responsibilities. allow me to express my appreciation to this subcommittee for its continued support of our
of missil defense approach that i just identified one as the amount and the phased adaptive approach and alaska both pieces do you approve both parts? >> i do. >> on the brac issue, as i understanding your testimony and your budget, mr. secretary, there is a short-term cost that there was an additional brac improvements, but that cost is not in the 2014 budget request. you put it in the 2015 budgeta >> the money is in 2016, it is $2.4 million of additional funds. previous rounds you testified saved, i believe, $12 billion annually. was that the savings that you say exist from the created from the last ground? from all the previous rounds. if you would like more detail maybe you could bring it out. i think you on the 75th barack you might remember you were in the the senate at the time in 2005. you might remember that i kind of lead the opposition of that round unsuccessfully. my senior senator was on the other side. yorm how you voted on that. we'll get in to that. >> by support. >> okay. okay. >> yeah i came with the first it was bringing down our infrastructure to an artificially l
of defense is currently spending $10 billion more conducting the war effort in afghanistan this year than was estimated would be necessary. from what we understand, in order to make up for this estimation the department of defense will have to pull from other funds from its base budget, which is difficult because of sequestration and the other long-term spending limits imposed by the budget control act of 2011. the problems with trying to budget and plan for a war a year in advance and how unforeseen costs can arise. at the same time a $10 billion is copulation is a little alarming. -- miss calculation is a little bit alarming. general, can you explain to us how that underestimation occurred? that we insidere u.s. forces in afghanistan under estimated $10 billion for our requirements for this year. i can assure you we have gone back and look at every dollar we have spent to make sure we have spent to good effect. we have significantly reduced the money we are spending in afghanistan. i will go back and take a look at where the projection came from and why we are in the position we are in
areas. one, financial planning going forward at the departments and number two, missile defense and our ability to defend the homeland. i want to start that much discussion about sequestration that the current budget and the department will hope fully in the month of may comply with the scots that present short-term challenges of long-term challenges. in addition, they contemplate a renew commission process going forward. i would suggest of assessing sequestration in the short-term and long-term and cannot brac process that a component should conclude consideration to the degree with which we can reduce the prance overseas, reduce bases overseas command manpower overseas, consistent with essential imperative for national security. the first question i wanted to ask secretary hagel as to what extent is the department complying with these financial pressure is our ability to drive down overseas footprints. referable to reduce overseas and here at home if it can be done consistently national security and to what extent is it apart and engaged right now in that assessment and analysis? >> t
't allow. and i'm not blaming the lawyer. my goodness, if i were his defense lawyer, you wouldn't ask him one thing without my permission and you would have to give a lot to get an answer to anything. all i'm suggesting is that we're at war, these two people fit the profile of folks who are trying to kill us, they're tied to overseas organizations potentially. why in the world can't our country have some time with this person in the national security legal system to find out about what he knows and how they planned this attack to make the rest of us safer? i believe in due process. and he in that system can go to a judge and say, i'm not an enemy combat expent the government would have to -- combatant and the government would have to prove you are. so he has due process there. but here's what i believe deeply, and then i'll turn it over to senator eye i can't telw hampshire. i believe the closer to get to your homeland, the more rights we have as a people to defend ourselves. i don't want a police state. i don't want to live in ath a country where you can't express who you are and what yo
military coalition group and so one year at least in my opinion as secretary of defense it's not clear enough to make any conclusions, inclusive adjustments to a policy recommendation on this is, mr. president, this is exactly what we should do. >> i had used two terms as i think are important, coherent and inclusive, because as i think as general dempsey suggested, should there be an immediate collapse of the assad government, there is the potential for civil strife unless the opposition is not only coherent but it embraces the three major traditions in the country, shia, sunni, four, christian and critic another context, we didn't have, and libya and again i will stand to be corrected, there was tribal rivalry but there wasn't quite such a traditional distinction of cleavage, sectarian cleavage in other areas also. and that is a very elusive objective. i thank you very much. >> if i could just add, do you mind? it's important to mention i think, you will hear some folks say we have to act now or we risk this become a sectarian conflict. i just want you to give my view of this. it is
on the future of the republican party. noonis beginning live at eastern on c-span2. >> defense secretary chuck hagel testified before the senate armed services committee wednesday. secretary hagel said there is a $22 billion shortfall this year. general dempsey said the department is not sure how this will impact military readiness. this is three hoursnd 45 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. today, the committee gives a warm welcome to general chuck dempsey,neral accompanied by the department comptroller undersecretary bob hale, for being on the department of defense fiscal year 2014. we welcomet secretary hagel on his first appearance as secretary of defense before the committee. we thank all of our witnesses for their service to our nation and to the soldiers, sailors, and marines at home and in harm's way, we can never say that enough. your st today is a key component of the committee's review of the two dozen 14 budget request for the department of defense. this year's request includes $526.60 billion for the base and $88.50 billion for overseas contingency operations , although, as your
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9